Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 – Arbitration – Territorial Jurisdiction – Seat of Arbitration – Venue of Arbitration – Jurisdiction of Courts – In a matter concerning the challenge of an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the issue of territorial jurisdiction of courts arises when the seat and venue of arbitration are not expressly determined by the parties or the arbitral tribunal.
In the absence of explicit agreement or determination regarding the seat or venue of arbitration, the jurisdiction of courts is guided by the agreement between the parties regarding jurisdiction as specified in the contract.
The conduct of parties during the arbitration proceedings, including participation without objection to the venue, may imply the determination of the seat of arbitration and thereby establish the jurisdiction of courts at that place.
While the venue of arbitration can change, the seat remains static and determined by the parties’ agreement or the arbitral tribunal.
Filing an application under Section 11 of the Act before a designated arbitral institution does not constitute filing in a court, thus not invoking the exclusive jurisdiction of a particular court under Section 42 of the Act.
The courts will respect the agreement between the parties regarding jurisdiction, as provided in the contract, unless there is a specific determination of the seat or venue of arbitration. (Para 41)
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
2024 AHC-LKO 36646
M/S Amit Engineering, Mainpuri Thru. Prop. Mr. Amit Dixit Vs. Superintending Engineer, Electricity Work Circle, Raebareilly Zone,M.V.V.N.L.
Matters Under Article 227 No. 1834 of 2024-Decided on 13-5-2024
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/2024-AHC-LKO-36646.pdf
